Now, I know I may be young in post numbers, but I do know one thing about this forum:
It was meant for Discussions About Orson Scott Card.
So, in the spirit of the name, the context and the over-all ideal of this forum, I have started a new topic, a very open and simple topic: WHAT WE LIKE ABOUT OSC.
From his written works, to philosophies and everything else about him. You don't have to agree, but no personal attacks.
We just need to come together as a forum community and prove that the age of Card-Philosophers is NOT over, and is NOT reduced to Video-Gamers and Movie-Fans.
Remember the first time you opened up a Ender book, or read a review, or found the forum... whatever your moment... And lets... just once more...
Talk about it.
What I like about OSC is his ability to connect generations. My father read Enders Game to me when I was very little, I think before I really understood chapter books. But I know it was the first chapter book I read on my own. Ender wiggin has been a little brother to me my entire life, and even though I miss his pressence in newer books, the new chapters are my way of opening people up into this world I feel like I've been in my entire life. As a mormon card-follower, I feel even more connected, but to be honest, I didn't know he was mormon until just a few years ago. Now, as a college student, the thing I like most about Card is that his works are not just for kids, young adults, adults or old folks... every work of fiction he creates is something for everyone, is a universal work.
~Ish
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
He's a good writer and is devoted to his family. That's always a good thing.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: He's...devoted to his family. That's always a good thing.
Unless they're vampires.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: He's...devoted to his family. That's always a good thing.
Unless they're vampires.
Considering the context, I don't think that applies.
OSC is a brilliant writer because he lets readers into the story. We hear a character's thoughts, and grow to become the character we read. He is skilled at building up points to reach a conclusion, which makes for excellent dialogue and clear understanding of plot details and character motivation. It's not hard to figure out what someone might be thinking in a book by OSC because he makes it a point to share his thoughts. He gives us enough information to know what is going on, but puts sufficient limits to make a reader unsure of the resolution. In making a character, he really creates a thinking being, who shares enough about himself to the reader to make the reader think his thoughts, and thereby becoming that character. You know the character so well from the masterful way he tells the story, you can't help but love him. It's exactly like what Ender says about tough enemies. OSC gets a reader to know a character so well that the reader falls in love with him.
Posted by Ish (Member # 11579) on :
Vampires are people too!
Just like zombies and werewolves! They need love just like us!
~Ish
Posted by Ish (Member # 11579) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: He's...devoted to his family. That's always a good thing.
Unless they're vampires.
Considering the context, I don't think that applies.
OSC is a brilliant writer because he lets readers into the story. We hear a character's thoughts, and grow to become the character we read. He is skilled at building up points to reach a conclusion, which makes for excellent dialogue and clear understanding of plot details and character motivation. It's not hard to figure out what someone might be thinking in a book by OSC because he makes it a point to share his thoughts. He gives us enough information to know what is going on, but puts sufficient limits to make a reader unsure of the resolution. In making a character, he really creates a thinking being, who shares enough about himself to the reader to make the reader think his thoughts, and thereby becoming that character. You know the character so well from the masterful way he tells the story, you can't help but love him. It's exactly like what Ender says about tough enemies. OSC gets a reader to know a character so well that the reader falls in love with him.
I agree, I think that is why he is so universally loved, or diverse in his audience, because his characters speak to us so easily, it make adapting to lots of audiences alot more probable.
~Ish
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish: Vampires are people too!
Just like zombies and werewolves! They need love just like us!
~Ish
You make a compelling point.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
My favorite Card novel. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I'm not sure what mine would be, if I had to pick a single favorite. Probably either Speaker for the Dead or 7th Son.
Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :
One of the things I love best about Card is that he can actually tell a story in a single novel. I've read too much fantasy that drags on and on. That being said, he does have several long series but nothing to compare with the waste of paper that is Jordan or Goodkind. For instance, Treason, (also called A Planet Called Treason if I'm not mistaken), creates a whole world, mixes elements of fantasy and sci-fi, and develops the main character enough for us to care deeply about him, all in a few hundred pages.
I would even say his seiries, such as Alvin Maker, succinctly writen and only take as many pages as really necessary to tell the story. At least when compared to others.
Sergeant
Posted by Ish (Member # 11579) on :
Sergeant -
I agree, and each book in and of themseles are a complete story, with a begining and end in and of themselves. Thats what makes it so easy to read!
~Ish
Posted by Steve_G (Member # 10101) on :
Card's dialogue is hands down the best I've read. i love reading for the wit that comes out in the arguments and conversation. that and the stories are great too.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I enjoy reading Card's dialogue as well.
He's very, very good at using point of view in his writing.
His touches of poetry take the already weighty emotions of the stories and turn them into wrecking balls of poignancy. (In a good way.)
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Card should write insults for more video games!
ACK! What am I saying? Shadows in Flight, Ender in Exile, and Master Alvin FIRST!
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
His writing classes.
Yes, it would be natural to say, but...what about Ender? Alvin? Pastwatch? Those are good bests, too, but the writing classes still win. They're that good.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Wow - everything. The first exposure I had to him was, of course, Ender's Game. I read it all in one night and was absolutely, utterly, amazed! Every book since then has just increased my opinion.
After reading Ender's Game, I researched a bit of his life. He startled me as an utterly amazing human being. How anyone who has gone through the trials he has could ever write so hopeful, inspiring novels is something I never thought possible. And yet he exists...
I'm not sure what about his writing calls to my heart. I suppose it's partially the character development and interesting plots, but not all. After all, other people develop good characters, and some of his books were written with plot lines would never have interested me (Empire) or were down right cheezy (Treasurebox) - and yet, they were still good to read (even if by no means my favorite). I think what it really is about his books that I like is the emotional blend, the REALITY of person he puts into them. I mean, how many authors can make your laugh in the midst of tears, or have jokes tied so powerfully to the characters in most heart that they make you wince? Even more, while alot of authors include things like eating in their stories - OSC's characters are full fleshed! They eat, drink, sleep, but also have mood swings, get sick, shower, bathe, and have normal elimination functions. (Haven't you ever wondered how the white knight in shining armor could pee?) It makes the stories more believable, makes them easier to visualize yourself as a part of. I just love it!
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I appreciate that he can write compelling and believable characters, whether he approves of them or not. And that he doesn't usually write plots that hinge on the "good" characters being rewarded and the "bad" ones being pilloried.
Posted by Clandestineguitarplayer (Member # 11571) on :
I love OSCs writing for the reason that he is so incredibly smart about his books... There are very few holes and you know that he knew the entire story before he wrote a word of the final draft. No wingin it. I also love the contrast between his "Ender/Bean" novels and some of his other works... "Homebody" for example, its amazing how different his voice can be. But at the same time there is a familiar tone to his characterization. Its great!
Posted by FriskerBitey (Member # 11504) on :
Besides his books, one thing I like about OSC is his Uncle Orson Reviews Everything column.
His book reviews introduced me, for example, to two of my favorite authors: Michael Connelly, and Brandon Sanderson.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
Well, I mainly just really love and respect his writing. It rocks, in most cases. The dude knows how to wield a word.
I usually disagree with most of his political views, but he still seems like a very nice, friendly guy. Who knows, though. I've never met him in person before.
He does have a very nice voice. He does afterwords on many of his audio books and also does some narration. I've always enjoyed listening to him. He actually sounds almost exactly like Teller, the magician who never speaks (during performances.) It's kind of weird, actually.
Posted by Clandestineguitarplayer (Member # 11571) on :
I definitely, one-hundred percent agree with your view on his capability of word-wielding... Its definitely one of the plus sides of reading his books... It makes you feel smart! Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
I loved his review of Rowlings' latest claim and her decision to make Dumbledore gay, post-mortem.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
LD, do you really think she had not decided that Dumbledore was gay before she "killed" him?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Of course she had decided Dumbledore was "gay" years before. It's the only explanation for his behavior toward Grindelwald when they were teenagers that makes any real sense. Anybody who says any different isn't using their gray matter, IMHO.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: It's the only explanation for his behavior toward Grindelwald when they were teenagers that makes any real sense.
I'm trying to decide if you're serious or not.
Are you?
Because when I read about Grindelwald and Dumbledore being such good friends, I didn't think, "Oh! They're gay!" I thought, "They're really good friends."
The story makes sense without Dumbledore being homosexual, steven.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The story makes sense without Dumbledore being homosexual. However, I think there's sufficient evidence that Dumbledore is homosexual that I myself wondered, "Hm. Is Dumbledore homosexual?" and was completely unsurprised when she said he was.
But as you've noted, his sexuality is completely irrelevant to the story -- which is why it's not in the story. It's relevant only to the kind of thing Rowling started thinking about immediately after finishing her series: a lexicon, a book of canon "facts" that may or may not have been revealed in the original work.
Would it be "cowardly" of Rowling to mention in passing -- or in her upcoming encyclopedia -- that Ron's family were Mormons, and that butterbeer is okay to wizardly Mormons because it's actually non-alcoholic and is not considered a "hot drink" for some reason?
That's the kind of "information" her encyclopedia is going to contain: revealing little details she didn't necessarily want to put into the main text, but which may have guided her writing in the background.
Posted by Ish (Member # 11579) on :
Wait. The Weasley's were mormons?
Then... where did they keep all the other wives?
LOL. Sorry, had to throw that in there, can't let the discussion get to series, bad for the ulcers you know.
In continuing with the discussion. I can give JKR that it wasn't intentional to cause a ruccous, but I can't give you that it was obvious that Dumbledore was gay. (IMHO, boys can be friends and talk to other males in a philosphical, fatherly, kind and senstive way and not be gay)
Everyone goes crazy about HP news and to be honest, I think it would have been much more humble and honest on her part to let us read it in a HP Encyclopedia, then answer a question that didn't even ask his sexuality with that bomb of a tid bit. Though, I wasn't there, so I can't be sure as to exactly how she worded it, I have heard the question and the answer second hand and I feel like it was kind of a wierd way to answer such a simple question.
But I'm not JKR, and I don't know what she thought the question meant. The decision most clearly wasnt post-mortem, but that doesn't mean she needed to divulge it at that time. I would be curious to know whether or not she anticipated what a talking point it would be.
~Ish
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:The story makes sense without Dumbledore being homosexual, steven.
Nobody's arguing otherwise. It simply makes *more* sense with him being such. His fascination with Grindelwald was such that Albus was prepared to leave his family for him. A purely intellectual fascination works perhaps, but an intellectual+romantic/sexual fascination works even better.
The amusing thing about OSC's argument about JKR being PC when describing Dumbledore is gay, is that this fascination with Grindelwald was Dumbledore's greatest mistake, the mistake that ended up causing the death of his little sister. So in the one point of the story that homosexuality actually plays a role perhaps, its role is quite negative. Not quite that PC if PC-ness is what she was after.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Ish, here's the exact transcript of question and answer:
Question: Did Dumbledore, who believed in the prevailing power of love, ever fall in love himself?
JKR: My truthful answer to you... I always thought of Dumbledore as gay. Dumbledore fell in love with Grindelwald, and that that added to his horror when Grindelwald showed himself to be what he was. To an extent, do we say it excused Dumbledore a little more because falling in love can blind us to an extent? But, he met someone as brilliant as he was, and rather like Bellatrix he was very drawn to this brilliant person, and horribly, terribly let down by him. Yeah, that's how i always saw Dumbledore. In fact, recently I was in a script read through for the sixth film, and they had Dumbledore saying a line to Harry early in the script saying I knew a girl once, whose hair... [laughter]. I had to write a little note in the margin and slide it along to the scriptwriter, "Dumbledore's gay!"
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
Even if Rowling answered the question, "Did Dumbledore ever fall in love?" with a simple yes or no, the logical follow-up to such an answer would have been, "Who did he fall in love with?" Then, you're right back where you've started.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I found the idea of Dumbledore being gay to ruin the whole point of the book. Love elevates and saves us, unless it is gay love, which then leads to the worst mistakes of our lives. The idea that dumbledore was tempted by the ideas, by power makes a better story for me.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The decision most clearly wasnt post-mortem, but that doesn't mean she needed to divulge it at that time.
Isn't that, the concealation of things that are true because they might upset people, the thing that most peopel take objection to with political correctness?
It seems like, looking at it that way, that JKR did the less PC thing in answering the question the way she did.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: Ish, here's the exact transcript of question and answer:
Question: Did Dumbledore, who believed in the prevailing power of love, ever fall in love himself?
JKR: My truthful answer to you... I always thought of Dumbledore as gay. Dumbledore fell in love with Grindelwald, and that that added to his horror when Grindelwald showed himself to be what he was. To an extent, do we say it excused Dumbledore a little more because falling in love can blind us to an extent? But, he met someone as brilliant as he was, and rather like Bellatrix he was very drawn to this brilliant person, and horribly, terribly let down by him. Yeah, that's how i always saw Dumbledore. In fact, recently I was in a script read through for the sixth film, and they had Dumbledore saying a line to Harry early in the script saying I knew a girl once, whose hair... [laughter]. I had to write a little note in the margin and slide it along to the scriptwriter, "Dumbledore's gay!"
I was there. The audience claped quite a bit after that.
What the hell is so PC about mentioning a gay character anyway?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Would it be "cowardly" of Rowling to mention in passing -- or in her upcoming encyclopedia -- that Ron's family were Mormons, and that butterbeer is okay to wizardly Mormons because it's actually non-alcoholic and is not considered a "hot drink" for some reason?
I don't think her mentioning that Dumbledore was gay was either cowardly or brave. It was just a "thing."
When I recently re-read the books, it's not like I thought, "Oh, WOW! Yeah, he's a total, complete flaming homo! Can't believe I didn't see that before..."
Unlike Tom, I don't think there's evidence for Dumbledore's sexuality in the books. His relationship with Grindlewold sounded a lot like the love I had for some of my missionary companions-- intense, true, and utterly devoid of sexual attraction.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
p.s. Snape kills Dumbledore.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Tom, yes. And I've questioned this here before. The other teachers were sexless. Snape had a crush on Lilly, and Hagrid had a crush on the giantess, but no other teacher had a love life. Why single Dumbledore out. It would have made just as much sense that he was infatuated with Grindenwald the way so many teens can be infatuated with with the actions and "coolness" of another teen of the same sex. That doesn't necessarily translate into a physical attraction.
Posted by Clandestineguitarplayer (Member # 11571) on :
I dont care if Dumbledore is gay... He isnt real anyway... Ender on the other hand... If OSC started going around claiming that he was gay and he only married Novihna because he felt obligated to coverup his sexuality, then I would be pissed... Also I dont care if the Weasleys were Mormon or not... It doesnt matter to me... Enders mom on the other hand... BOO-YA! Ha ha... But seriously, I am mormon and I dont mind people who arent so it doesnt matter to me... But this is just from someont who didnt particularly like the Harry Potter novels, and who thinks the movies are also quite lacking... Except Emma Watson...
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Ish: Vampires are people too!
Just like zombies and werewolves! They need love just like us!
~Ish
You make a compelling point.
I disagree! Zombies do not, I repeat, do not, need love. It's completely wasted on them.
Geeessh, Sheesh and ish!
As far as the current topic, what don't I like about OSC! He's like Mary Poppins, practically perfect in every way.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:His relationship with Grindlewold sounded a lot like the love I had for some of my missionary companions-- intense, true, and utterly devoid of sexual attraction.
Well, I've said before that Mormon men screw with my gaydar. *ducks*
quote:The other teachers were sexless....Why single Dumbledore out.
Specifically because somebody asked "did Dumbledore ever fall in love?" If someone had asked "did Professor Flitwick ever fall in love," presumably we might have learned something about his secret affair with Trelawney or something. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Well, I've said before that Mormon men screw with my gaydar. *ducks*
:0)
Slash has said the same thing. I've got my theories on why, but they're all based on things that I cannot possibly know about you.
[irreverence] Maybe Mormon men have so many children to continually prove to ourselves that, despite loving musical theater, we're straight! [/irreverence]
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
lol, True enough Tom, let's wait and see what she DOES do with the other teachers. If she puts them each in Hogwarts as a "monastery" to which they have fled after having loved, then lost, well, then I guess she's consistent. Otherwise, pshh, I don't have much respect for her post mortem announcement regarding such a main character. It feels a bit like she wants folks to go back and read with their "gaydars" finely tuned.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:"Otherwise, pshh, I don't have much respect for her post mortem announcement regarding such a main character"
I'm not quite sure what the "post-mortem" bit has to do with anything. Since Dumbledore died at book 6 and everything about his background was revealed at book 7, weren't all the revelations about him post-mortem? Including his former plans to rule over the whole Wizarding and Muggle world by allying himself to a Hitler-like figure, and his potential killing of his own sister?
Do you have respect for those revelations? Those were post-mortem revelations too, you know.
quote:"It feels a bit like she wants folks to go back and read with their 'gaydars' finely tuned."
Wouldn't any revelation about any character be similar? E.g. she has revealed that Dean Thomas's father was a wizard that left Dean's mother soon after his birth in an attempt to protect him from Deatheaters -- that Dean himself didn't even know that his father was a wizard.
Posted by Clandestineguitarplayer (Member # 11571) on :
Harry Potter... What I like about Orson Scott Card has nothing to do with any kind of Harry Potter. Is it not blasphemy to speak of such things when there are books out there baring Orson Scott Cards' name? Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I loved his review of Rowlings' latest claim and her decision to make Dumbledore gay, post-mortem.
I get that you agree with his points, but do you really think that the abusive language was perfectly fine or even admirable?
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Squick, I left for a LONG time because I couldn't get past my admiration/prior perception of the man to let him have his own and current tone of voice. It was so different from his early writings that, well... enough said.
Anyway, I have become tone deaf, and I try to just take the sense of his words. I agree with his conclusions.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Aris,
quote:I'm not quite sure what the "post-mortem" bit has to do with anything. Since Dumbledore died at book 6 and everything about his background was revealed at book 7, weren't all the revelations about him post-mortem? Including his former plans to rule over the whole Wizarding and Muggle world by allying himself to a Hitler-like figure, and his potential killing of his own sister?
Do you have respect for those revelations? Those were post-mortem revelations too, you know.
Didn't most of those revelations come from Dumbledore in Book 7? Possibly, I had better find the word for "after the fictional character's story has been completed and the character can't speak for himself within the context of a story". Aris, is there a word for that?
And the other revelations you mentioned were given within the story as well. So, I don't see your point.
And no, if she decided to just off-the-cuff start creating pasts for all the characters without double-checking her own work to make sure that it is consistent, then I wouldn't respect those "revelations". They would feel more like convenient fabrications.
I like her work, I really do, but I think that she should either create another book where she answers all the unknowns and develops pasts in a consistent, cohesive manner, or leave the work to stand as it is.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Just do what I do -- refuse to accept anything that's not in the novels as anything but speculation.
In fact, I don't even consider the last chapter of the last book as canon.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
mph- You are one funny guy ;p
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
How is it speculation if she knows the characters up and down? She probably even knows who their great-great grandparents were and what sort of soap they like, and nerdy little details like that.
Plus, once again, she's had this character in her head for years. She probably knows what sort of drawers Dumbledore wears under his robes. So of COURSE she'd know from the infant version of book 1 whether or not he's gay. It's not that it's "PC". It's just that folks have this really irratating thing when it comes to gay people and characters. Imagine if The Amber Spyglass was as popular. Folks would never shut up about it.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Possibly, I had better find the word for that
"outside the novels" perhaps. "Post-mortem" certainly isn't it.
As a sidenote - has OSC created any characters that were only incidentally gay, whose homosexuality didn't have a large role to play in their role in the story? I remember gay characters in e.g. "Songmaster" but in that one the homosexuality/bisexuality of those characters played a major role. Any other examples?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
In one of the Bean series books. Anton goes on and on about how he's gay, but he's marrying a woman anyway to be a part of the web of life. There's a book I didn't read yet where a character is gay and stays celebate for the good of his society. Those are the only two i can think of right now.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
LD, Are saying that you are upset that JKR released any of the extraneous information in dribs and drabs as she has, or just the bit with Dumbledore being gay?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:Possibly, I had better find the word for that
"outside the novels" perhaps. "Post-mortem" certainly isn't it.
As a sidenote - has OSC created any characters that were only incidentally gay, whose homosexuality didn't have a large role to play in their role in the story? I remember gay characters in e.g. "Songmaster" but in that one the homosexuality/bisexuality of those characters played a major role. Any other examples?
There are lots of characters whose sexuality isn't discussed at all. Perhaps we can choose to believe which of those might be gay. I think it's possible OSC only brings it up if he thinks it's important to the story.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Squick, To me, it seems silly to add any info to the story, off-the-cuff. The Dumbledore thing is irritating because he is such a major character, but I'd be just as irritated if she decided to announce tomorrow that abortions were common among the death eaters.
What does it add to the story? Who cares? These are fictional characters and if you're going to add to their story, then write it down.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Syn,
Yes she's the author and lived with the characters, but it's a HUGE story with many overlapping layers. Because of the scope of her work, she can't KNOW everything well enough to add to the story without researching her own work. She has said this herself.
Doesn't she owe it to the story and the fans of her story to check her own facts before making revelations that change the flavor or the story?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*sigh* She's not suddenly turning Dumbledore into a gay man. She says she's ALWAYS since she first created him thought of him as that way. That means long before she wrote 1-7 she had that in mind. It doesn't change the flavor of the story because unless Dumbledore was making out with Nick Flammel and Harry walked in, it doesn't need to be added to the story itself, but she has the right to reveal stuf about characters she's had in her head for ages.
Besides. How is him being gay that big a deal? Gay people exist. What does it matter? It's nothing to get angry abour or make a big deal about. It's not PC, it's just there.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The problem is that Dumbledore being gay does effect the story. His involvement with Grimmy and his motivation for that are very different from those stated in the book. In her statement, she even says that perhaps this info makes Dumbledore's time with the dark side more understandable. Leaving out a major motivation and adding it in later in an interview is not appropriate. If she had just said, he's gay and him and Spouts have been lovers for 30 years, that would have been insignificant.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The problem is that Dumbledore being gay does effect the story.
More precisely, it affects the backstory. It affects the main plot not one whit.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:What does it add to the story? Who cares?
It adds context to a relationship. And isn't it ridiculous to ask "who cares" at this point, when some people are clapping and some other people are going foamy in the mouth over it?
OSC is obviously one of the people who cares - the people who clapped when she made the announcement obviously are also people that care, except in a different way.
quote:How is him being gay that big a deal? Gay people exist. What does it matter?
The reason it matters is because some people would prefer to pretend gay people do not exist.
That's why some people care so much about this revelation one way or another: There's few other minorities in the world where mere affirmation of their existence becomes a point of controversy.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: [QB]Leaving out a major motivation and adding it in later in an interview is not appropriate.
That's kinda what I feel about "Ender's Shadow" and the prequels about Ender's parents, and the revelations in Xenocide/Children of the Mind regarding Jane's creation.
Except not. My exact problem with those revelations are that they tend to be either emotionally or even factually inconsistent with the original stories, but the revelation about Dumbledore is perfectly consistent.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Aris,
quote:It adds context to a relationship. And isn't it ridiculous to ask "who cares" at this point, when some people are clapping and some other people are going foamy in the mouth over it?
And because it has changed the flavor of the story, it should have either been written in or added, not off-the-cuff, but in an additional book that makes it official rather than convenient to sales.
quote:That's kinda what I feel about "Ender's Shadow" and the prequels about Ender's parents, and the revelations in Xenocide/Children of the Mind regarding Jane's creation.
Card is doing EXACTLY what is the author's perogative and duty, imo, when adding to an existing story. He WROTE it down! He didn't just throw off a few tidbits to tantalize his audience, he created a complete story to keep the additional information in context and yet, you're claiming, that after research, he still couldn't keep the facts straight. lol, "Ender's Game" is the prequel to "Speaker for the Dead". He wrote it because he wanted to put "Speaker" into context.
You believe that the Dumbledore revelation is consistent, so it's okay with you. That's fine. I believe that the revelation is convenient and that makes it extraneous and annoying to me.
Ya know, if she had decided to write a book that told about the exploits of Dumbledore and Grim. Their plans, Dumbledore's mixed feelings about muggles. How Dumbledore fell in love with Grim, the pain he suffered when his sister died and what changed his view on muggles and his adoration of Grim, I'd buy that book. I'd be REALLY interested in hearing that whole story. That is a story worth telling. But to tell that story would take work, and I don't think she's ready to "work" like that again. Not yet. Still, the allure of the spotlight is intoxicating. Making comments, especially emotionally charged comments about main characters is a convenient way to hold the spotlight without investing much work.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: [QB]Leaving out a major motivation and adding it in later in an interview is not appropriate.
That's kinda what I feel about "Ender's Shadow" and the prequels about Ender's parents, and the revelations in Xenocide/Children of the Mind regarding Jane's creation.
Except not. My exact problem with those revelations are that they tend to be either emotionally or even factually inconsistent with the original stories, but the revelation about Dumbledore is perfectly consistent.
I see where you're coming from. I'm bothered by Ender's parents knowing about Valentine and Peter's actions on the web, but not knowing about Peter bullying two of their children. How could they have NOT known?
quote: Making comments, especially emotionally charged comments about main characters is a convenient way to hold the spotlight without investing much work.
Bull. She wasn't making the statement for attention, or having some interview in Newsweek. She was just answering someone's question. If Dumbledore had been revealed to be, I don't know, Russian instead of Gay would folks be making this big a deal out of it or are people really that bothered by an awesome cool character who just so happens to have been gay because again, that's what the author had in mind. Remember, Dumbledore and Grindelwald's story is only in the background. NMot in the forfront. The real story is Harry trying to rid the world of Voldermort.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And because it has changed the flavor of the story, it should have either been written in or added, not off-the-cuff, but in an additional book that makes it official rather than convenient to sales.
Two questions:
1) Why? Clearly she didn't think it mattered one way or another, except as it provided interesting context to the backstory of a character. You go on to say "Card is doing EXACTLY what is the author's perogative and duty..." Why is this an author's duty? Where is it written?
2) Do you actually think sales were affected by Dumbledore's sexuality?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by LadyDove: And because it has changed the flavor of the story, it should have either been written in or added, not off-the-cuff, but in an additional book that makes it official rather than convenient to sales.
I'd think that selling it in an additional book would be even more convenient to sales, because of the selling part.
---
Edited to add: I didn't mean that to be snarky or snide. I honestly meant that I don't get why answering a question posed by a fan is more mercenary (this is what you mean? not sure) than writing up de novo more of a tell-all story and selling it would be.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:and yet, you're claiming, that after research, he still couldn't keep the facts straight.
Um, yes, there are many facts that are factually inconsistent between his early books and later ones. I'm not just claiming that. Want me to mention a few such inconsistencies?
Some of the factual inconsistencies are: The role of Netherlands in the political make-up of the world. (Ender's Game calls it under Russian control for example). Whether it was Peter or Valentine that wanted Ender off the planet. Whether Demosthenes is believed to have left with the first colony ships or not. The extent to which religion is banned.
Emotional inconsistencies include the treatment of Ender's parents (Ender's game wants to present them as neglectful and clueless - the Bean series wants to present them as brilliant and caring), and the different justifications for Bean's words in the one scene in 'Ender's Game' where we actually enter his head.
quote:And because it has changed the flavor of the story, it should have either been written in or added, not off-the-cuff, but in an additional book that makes it official rather than convenient to sales
So... instead of simply answering a fan's question, she should have said "You'll need to buy my next book for that".
And you somehow think that forcing people to buy an additional book would be worse for her sales and be less greedy on her part than the free offer of information.
Either my own sanity or yours is starting to fail here.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I hope this would be a good place to mention I really enjoyed OSC's column on Hillary's no-lose strategy. Maybe I'm biased.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
I think he is more or less right about Hillary's strategy. He's doing more reporting and analysis than reflection and laying out opinions in that column. I had suspected that this was Hillary's goal since around the Pennsylvania primary, but I hadn't heard it from anyone else. So maybe I'm biased too, but what OSC said in his column makes the most sense for a challenger who is losing in the primaries, but not by a margin wide enough to kill her, and really REALLY wants to be president (== Hillary).
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by LadyDove: Squick, To me, it seems silly to add any info to the story, off-the-cuff. The Dumbledore thing is irritating because he is such a major character, but I'd be just as irritated if she decided to announce tomorrow that abortions were common among the death eaters.
What does it add to the story? Who cares? These are fictional characters and if you're going to add to their story, then write it down.
Although I do have a tendency to rib my online friends who get into two-page debates over Harry Potter canon, I have to say that I do agree with this point.
I fully understand that a writer has a whole world in her head and that there are details of that world which may be important to her, but which just don't add to the story, so she edits her world when she writes her books. I get that. But it still seems silly to let out tidbits of the world when letting out said tidbits will not enhance anybody's understanding of the books. It's just kind of an odd move, and it seems unnecessary.
Lest anybody think that I am one of those people who is all, "EWW, DUMBLEDORE IS GAY NOW I CAN'T TAKE HIM SERIOUSLY ALSO HE MUST MOLEST ALL THE HOGWARTS KIDS BECAUSE CLEARLY HOMOSEXUALITY IS THE SAME THING AS PEDOPHILIA," you could not be further from the mark. I truly do not give a rip about a person's sexual orientation, whether they be real people or fictional wizards. I am completely unbiased on the issue of gay characters in fiction, even in kids' fiction. A character's choice in sexual partners matters to me exactly as much as the color of his skin, which is to say, not even remotely. It's his actions, dialog, and development that interest me.
Still, I think it was ridiculous for J.K. to be all HEY DUMBLEDORE IS THE GAY outside the realm of her books. It smacked of a publicity stunt, and it added zilch to the story.
I have the same feelings toward authors who do this kind of post-publishing milieu-making as I do toward fan fiction. Sorry, writers and readers of fanfics. I can't stand fan fiction; I think it's weird. Dumbledore being gay (and any additional bits of milieu that Rowling has thrown out there and which do nothing to enhance one's understanding of the books) feels exactly the same in my head as J. K. Rowling writing fanfics about her own books. Just...silly, silly, silly.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Still, I think it was ridiculous for J.K. to be all HEY DUMBLEDORE IS THE GAY outside the realm of her books.
She said it once, in response to a reader's question at a forum specifically intended for responses to reader's questions.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
CT and Aris,
Yes, I think that it would have added more to her sales to have written a book, but that's why we buy books. We want the whole story.
And to all, Tom, Squick, Aris, CT,
I have been pondering why this feels so wrong. Maybe it's because a writer releasing potentially damaging (not in my eyes, but to some it may seem) info about a main character outside of the written work is so foriegn to me. Is this a common practice?
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: She said it once, in response to a reader's question at a forum specifically intended for responses to reader's questions.
True and not true. The question was, "Did Dumbledore, who believed in the prevailing power of love, ever fall in love himself?" The question was not "Was Dumbledore in love with Grindewald?" or "Who was Dumbledore in love with?" or even "Tell us more about the inner life of Dumbledore" or "Are there any homosexual characters in your work?" It was simply, "Was Dumbledore ever in love?"
It's the level of *extraneous detail* she went into about Dumbledore's love life (extraneous relative to the actual question that was asked) that annoys the hell out of me and makes me feel as if I had a peek into her own personal fanfic world. Gay or straight, it was goofy as heck. A simpler answer such as, "Yes, I've always envisioned Dumbledore as having had relationships in his past" would have answered the fan's question fully and honestly. It's the whole weird look into Dumbledore's past - a past which never has any impact on the story as presented in the books - that feels totally weird and just...fanfictiony.
Dumbledore's horror at Grindewald's turning to the dark side is no more or less strong because Dumbledore had romantic notions about Grindewald. The book would have played out with exactly the same feeling if Dumbledore had loved Grindewald as a friend or as a brother. Love is love, and horror at a loved one becoming evil is horror at a loved one becoming evil. The creation of a hyper-detailed backstory and then the revelation of that backstory to fans just seems so amateurish and silly to me. Even if it's in answering a fan's question. It's not the sexual orientation of the character that annoys me. It's the way it was presented.
Of course, I've never seen such obsessive and eager fanfic-writing in any fandom outside of Harry Potter. No doubt Rowling know who pays her bills, and such a fanfic-y revelation could have been a calculated move on her part to keep up a strong connection with those who buy her books. In that case, my hat's off to her. That was a smart move, even if it irritates me on a personal level.
It all comes down to the tone of the delivery, for me. It can never be over-stated how much I dislike fanfiction. Again, I apologize to those here who do like it. It's not a judgment of the people who read or write it; it's just a personal annoyance, in the same sense that I'm deeply annoyed by the misuse of apostrophes and by trendy baby names. Seeing an author reveal her devotion to a whole framework of extraneous fantasy world-building makes my hide twitch. Unless it was meant to sell more books; then I think it's brilliant.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Libbie: Of course, I've never seen such obsessive and eager fanfic-writing in any fandom outside of Harry Potter.
You are simply unaware of it. While fanfiction based on books is less common than that based on TV series or movies, it definitely exists. Sherlock Holmes is popular; so are Jane Austen's characters. T
There is more HP fanfic because there are more HP fans.
I don't think Rowling's answer necessarily needed the detail she provided, but I don't understand your level of ire at all. Would you have a similar degree of anger if she had gone into great detail about some shop in Diagon Alley that was never mentioned in the books? Because her answers to fan questions have frequently been about that sort of thing -- just none of them made news anywhere by on HP sites. That sort of unpublished detail is EXACTLY why HP fans go to hear her speak, flock to online interviews, etc.
Ignoring anything unpublished as not "canon" is certainly not unreasonable. I think anger at her comments is.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Ignoring anything unpublished as not "canon" is certainly not unreasonable.
Is it still reasonable for me to selectively parts of the the published material to not consider canon?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
*ducks*![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)